Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526217
label
Board of Directors, National Petroleum Refiners Association, September 23, 1969
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526217
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Board of Directors, National Petroleum Refiners Association, September 23, 1969
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Federal budget
Legislation
National security
Taxation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526217
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1969-09-30
month
9
year
1969
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1969-09-01
month
9
year
1969
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
5ea9f270669f84ae
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D27, folder "Board of Directors, National
Petroleum Refiners Association, September 23, 1969" of the Ford Congressional Papers:
Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D27 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
at 11 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 23, 1969, before the Board of Directors, National
Petroleum Refiners Association, meeting at the Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C.
no Distribution: Accd only as notes
M Office Copy
Good morning, gentlemen. This morning I am going to give you a rundown on
what's happening in the Congre ss--my assessment of it, that is.
Before I do that, I'd like to brighten your day a bit. I wonder how many of
you happened to see a news story in The National Observer detailing the fact that
the bids on the Alaskan North Slope oil lands amount to $3,169 for each citizen of
each Dasken is
receive
Alaska. Not that
going to
that amount
in cash. But
there are some interesting suggestions as to what the Legislature of Alaska ought
to do with the money. One idea calls for abolishing the state income t ax. Another
is to move the state capital from Juneau to someplace anywhere elses And a
third idea is to give all
Alaskans a $250 monthly pension when they turn 65.
Inasmuch as you are all oilmen, I thought you'd like to know that oil people
are
heroes
at least in Alaska--to everybody but the Eskimods that
is.
That's quite a switch, isn't it, from being the favorite whipping boy of the
91st Congress?
That comment naturally takes us into the tax reform and tax relief bill of 1969--I
think it will be 1969.
I
supported the tax bill as it passed the House of Representatives last
August
7.
In
that
bill,
House
Ways and Means Committee members, and House members
generally, responded to the public demand for tax reform and tax relief. While the
House bill does not have as anti-inflationary
a cast as one might wish, it is by and
large a constructive piece of legislation.
I think the tax bill
as it takes final shape after amending by
the Senate and compromise action by the House and Senate will be basical the House
bill. But I can understand the motivation behind proposed changes sought by the
Administration.
The Administration is supporting most of the House provisions. New proposals
would lower the regular
corporate income tax rate from the current 48 per cent to
present
46, saving corporations 1.6 billion by 1972 at
profit levels. The
Administration proposals would
give upper-income taxpayers better treatment than
the House bill does and would cut taxes for
/
low-income families by
920 million instead of the $2.7 billion reduction in the House legislation. The
Administration also would keep the longterm capital gains t ax at 25 per cent, except for
taxing very large gains at the 32.5 per cent rate
fixed
for all capital gains in the House bill.
GERAL
IBRARY
-2-
lower-income tax
What the Administration is saying, in effect, is: We should moderate the cuts
ease un on the business tax increases so as
in the House bill in the interests of fighting inflation, and we should
not to kill the goose
that lays the golden eggs.
hat will happen in the Senate I do not pretend to know. I do not have a
a reliable soothsayer there.
But I will rely on Mike Mansfield's
statement that a bill will be enacted
this year, and I will add to that my declaration that a tax bill must be
approved this year for the
good of the Nation.
The kind of uncertainty to which the economy has been sub Hected for months has
gone on far too long as it is. We need to call the signals and get the plays in
motion.
One more comment about the tax bill. It is built on
a foundation provided
by the
Nixon Administration last April. It was the Nixon Administration which
provided the initial impetus for the most compr ehensive tax reform measure being
shaped by the Congress since the income tax first was adopted 56 years ago.
Among the
Administration recommendations of last April
families
were proposals to take five million low-incime
off the tax rolls and to
sharply reduce taxes for eight million others.
So when congre ssional
critics charge that the Nixon Administration
is more
corporation
presidents than
America's poor it is nothing but the cheapest kind of
demogoguery. It's just
plai in dirty pool, to use a good American expression.
It is interesting to
note, too, that
those members of Congress who are
most anxious to sign away huge sums of Federal revenue through
deep tax
cuts are the same members who are
eager to exceed the President's
budget requests for domestic programs and to cut the amounts Mr. Nixon believes
are needed to maintain this Nation's defensive strength.
What we have
is a situation where some lawmakers are forgetting that
fighting inflation goes far
beyond just imposing a spending limitation
combatting
on the President. The responsibility for
inflation
rests just as heavily with Congress as with the Pre sident.
Ibelieve spending for military programs must be held to the minimum necessary
for a sound national defense. But Ibelieve Congre SS
must also
keep a
careful check on non-military spending, particularly
needed
at this time
when a sizable Federal surplus is
to restrain inflationary
pre ssures.
I have been pleased to see that
those in the Congress who
-3-
have
been over-zealous in their efforts to reduce military spending have not prevailed
in such areas as President Nixon's limited missile defense program the
Safeguard ABM system, construction of a new nuclear
aircraft carrier, and
development of a new strategic bomber to replace the B-52 intercontinental bomber.
Close scrutiny of proposed new weapons
procurement and of military construction
is most healthy in our society. But the challenges to such expenditures must not
be so over-weighted as to approach irresponsibility.
I do believe the debate over military spending has produced some good byproducts--
study of the need for future
aircraft carriers, extra safety precautions and a
cutback
in spending on chemical and bacteriological warfare,
Texen
for the
multi-billion-dollar cutbacks ordered by the Defense
Department itself, I think we would have seen this military spending hold-down without
any pressure from the Congress.
I think those who would cut our military spending too deeply are making a mistake.
Not only would they place our national security in jeopardy but they a re flying in the
gace of
the American people's desire to
keep
this Nation militarily strong.
here would the American people cut Federal spending? I
think
they
us hold back our space spending now that we have reached the moon.
Not cut it to levels that would seriously
hurt the space program but hold it to
a pace which would divert more Federal money into water
pollution control,
improvement of local law enforcement, Federal aid to cities, and defense programs
apart from Vietnam
A settlement in Vietnam is, however, the key. This is what we desperately need
to rearrange our priorities and to
focus proper attention on the pressing
problems of the Seventies. I believe Mr. Nixon is doing everything humanly possible
to
end the tnam War, with honor.
and
Health
Let me turn now to the Occupational Safety Bill, being considered in the
House by
the Daniels Subcommittee.
Hearings are about to start on this legislation, and the prospects
are for
fattle
a
between supporters of the Administration bill and backers of the old
Democratic bill which was reported out in modified form last year but didn't go
anywhere.
Occupational Safety and Health probably will go over until next session. From
what I have been able to observe, liberal Democrats in the Education and Labor
Committee are determined to clobber any legislation the Administration sends to
that committee. And they do have the votes to do it, so the Administration's
recourse will have to be on the floor of the House via the amendment route.
On the coal mine safety bill reported out last Thursday by the House Labor
and Education Committee, the
prospects are for
enactment of the strongest coal
mine health and safety bill ever to clear the
Congress.
Remaining differences center on two main provisions- a Federal "service charge"
of 2 cents a ton on mined coal for a health r esearch and lung X-ray program, and
Federally-financed workmen's complensation for disable and dead
victims of black lung disease.
Rep. John Erlenborn and other Republicans contend that the 2-cent service charge
is actually a tax, and so the matter should be considered by the House Ways and Means
Committee. As for
workmen S compensation, that has
always been
handled by the states, If we provide Federally-finance workmen's compensation
for coal miners, will
other workers not
also demand Federal funding of
such programs?
But all in al 1 the mine safety bill emerged from the committee a better bills
than the original version. It contains, for instance, rights of review and appeal not
only
with regard to the enforcement of standards but also the writing of them.
In the House Government Operations Committee, hearings are being conducted on
proposals to create a department of consumer affairs
under legislation
sponsored by Rep. Ben Rosenthal
an office of consumer affairs under
a bill
introduced by Rep. Florence Dwyer.
Thus
far only private witnesses have testified, and nearly all of them have
endorsed Mrs. Dwyer's approach. In fact, Mrs. Dwyer's bill has been co-sponsored by
Rep. Leonor Sullivan.
Mrs. Dwyer's bill has broad suppor and may be enacted sometime next year.
The
proposal to establish an office of consumer affairs is an idea whose time
is about to come. If the time is not next year, it is not much farther off. The
question that remains is the content of the
bill. There is movement also in this
direction on the Senate side of the Capitol in Sen. Ribicoff's Executive Reorganization
Subcommittee.
I have touched on subjects in which I felt you had a special interest. Now I
would like to make some
general comment on the direction in which Congress
is tending.
FORD
There has been little action to date, but the
work
that
has
been
done
has
been
distinguished by its quality.
-5-
The President is disappointed by the slowness of the pace, but I am going
to withhold judgment on this first session of the 91st Congress until we adjourn
for the year.
Some pobiticians
on the other side are fond of citing the tremendous avalanche of
legislation passed by the
89th Congress, as though sheer
numbers of
bills are the criterion of a good Congress.
I recall when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield
remarked that the
89th Congress had passed so much legislation so quickly that it was full of loopholes
and rough corners and needed remedial action.
So I will be satisfied if the 91st turns out to be a Quality Congress but
implicit in that term quality will be the responsiveness of the 91st Congress to
the major reforms proposed by the Nixon Administration.
Ibelieve this Nation and its people will be severely short-changed if the 91st
Congre SS does not enact draft reform, postal reform, welfare reform.. the transformation
of welfare into workfare, reform of the food stamp program, narcotics abuse control,
antiscrime legislation
obscene mail control,
a mass transit program, an air safety program, and
the
revenue sharing which is the hear of President Nixon!s
"New
Federalism."
President Nixon is moving to meet this Nation's most massive problems--and the
Congress must move with him.
The
basic thrust of the President's domestic
return
program is clear. He is trying to win congre ssional backing to K control, funds
and authority
the S tates and local units of government so they may move to
solve the problems closest to them.
This is the New Federalism. This is people's government,
guiding
people's programs. This is a government which 'eçognizes the needs of people and
make us a ration 3
seeks to bring them together.
to
individuals who a re doing, caring
and sharing.
This is
the challenge of the New Federalism. This is the challenge to us
all--that we abandon the a ttitude that "all is fine
so long as I get mine."
George Bernard
Shaw put it this way: "We are all dependent on one another,
every soul of us on e arth."
The responsibility for guiding
the future of America rests not only with
the Congre ss,
not only with governmental leaders, not only with the President. That
responsibility devolves upon all of us. Each of our lives impinges on the lives of
others. To the extent that we all live the good life, the unselfish life, the lives of
all others are enriched.
We all believe in the American Dream. Let us
live so that all may share in it.
######
You Upon
was Day
fet -
off
of
10
Tax reform
20
To
#
08
Deferre ed 03 ) imitating /industand STATICO complex 5ml
off
to
W
11
ed
b
10
Injusts -
them
shiphelling
Quatas
of
bas
to
oris
add
of
10
FORDING
Remarks by Rep. Gerald 1t. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Repre entatives,
77 Tuesday, Sept. 23, 1969, before the Board of Directors, National
Petroloum Refiners Association, meeting at the Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C.
no Distribution thed only as notes
Office Copy
odemorning, gentlemen. This morning I am going to give you a rundown on
what's happening in the Congre ss-my assessment of it, that is.
Before I do that, I'd like to brighten your day a bit. I wonder how many of
you happened to see a news story in The National Observer detailing the fact that
the bids on each Rlasken the Alaskan North Slope oil lands amount to 3,169 for each citizen of
receive
Alaska.
Not
that
go ing to
that amount
in cash. But
there are some interesting suggestions as to what the Legislature of Alaska ought
to do with the money. One idea calls for abolishing the state income ax. Another
is to move the state capital from Juneau to someplace else- anywhere elso, And a
third idea is to give all
Alaskans a $250 monthly pension when they turn 65.
Inssmuch as you are all oilmen, I thought you'd like to know that oil people
are
heroes
at least in Aleska--to everybody but the Eskimous, that
is.
That's _uite switch, isn't it, from being the favorite whipping boy of the
91st Congress?
That comment naturally takes us into the tax reform and tax relief bill of 1969--I
think it will be 1969.
1
supported the tax bill as it passed the House of Representatives last
Augu
7.
In
that
bill,
House
Ways and Means Committee members, and House members
generally, sponded to the public demand for tax reform and tax relief. While the
House bill does not have as anti-inflationary
a cast as one might wish, it is by and
large a constructive piece of legislation.
I think the tax bill
as it takes final shape after amending by
the Senate and compromise action by the House and Senate will be basical ly the House
bill. But I can understand the motivation behind proposed changes sought by the
Administration.
The Administration is supporting most of the House provisions. New proposals
would lower the regular
corporate income tax rate from the current 48 per cent to
preson'
46, saving corporations w1.6 billion by 1972 at
profit levels. The
Administration proposals would
give upper-income taxpayers better treatment than
the House bill does and would cut taxes for
low-income families by
$920 million instead of the $2.7 billion reduction in the House legislation. The
Administration also would keep the longterm capital gains t ax at 25 per cent, except for
taxing very large gains at the 32.5 per cent rate
Sixed
for all cspital gains in the House bill.
GERALD
-2-
lower-income tax
What the Administration is saying, in effect, is: We should moderate the cuts
ease un on the business tax increases so as
in the House bill in the interests of fighting inflation, and we should
not to kill the goose
that lays the golden eggs.
What will happen in the Senate I.do not pratend to know. I do not have 8
a reliable soothsayer there.
But will roly on Mike Mensfield's
statement that a bill will be enacted
this year, I will add to that my declaration that a tax bill must be
approved this year for the
good of the Nation.
The kind of uncortainty to which the economy has been dected for months has
gone on far to 1000 as it is. We need to call the signals and get the plays in
motion.
the more comment about the tax bill. It is built on
a foundation provided
by the
Nixon Administration last April. It was the Nixon Administration which
provi led the initial impetus for the most compr ehensive tax reform measure being
shaped by the Congress since the income tax first was adonted 56 years ago.
Among the
Administration recommendations of last April
families
were proposals to take five million low-income
off the tax rolls and to
sharply reduce taxes for eight million, others.
So when congre ssional
critics charge that the Nixon Administration
is more
corporation
presidents than
America's poor it is nothing but the cheapest kind of
demogoguery.
It's
just
plan in dirty pcol, to use a good American expression.
It is interesting to
note, too, that
those members of Congress who are
most anxious to sign away huge sums of Federal revenue through
deep tax
cuts are the same members who are
eager to exceed the President's
budget requests for domestic programs and to cut the amounts Mr. Nixon believes
are needed to maintain this Nation's defensive strength.
What we have
is a situation where some lawmakers are forgetting that
fighting inflation goes far
beyond just imposing a spending limitation
combatting
on the President. The responsibility for
inflation
rests just as heavily with Congress as with the resident.
Ibelieve spending for military programs must be held to the minimum necessary
for a sound national defense. But Ibelieve Congress
must Iso
keep a
careful check on non-military spending, particularly
needer
at this time
when a sizable Federal surplus is
to restrain inflationary
pressures.
I have been pleased to see that
those in the Congress who
-3-
have
been or-zealous in their efforts to reduce military spending have not prevailed
in such areas as President Nixon's limited missile defense program, the
Safeguard ABM system, construction of a new nuclear
aircraft carrier, and
development of a new strategic bomber to replace the B-52 intercontinental bomber.
Close scrutiny of proposed new weapons
procurement and of military construction
is most healthy in our society. But the challenges to such expenditures must not
be so over-weighted as to approach irresponsibility.
I do believe the debate over military spending has produced some good byproducts--
study of the need for future
aircraft carriers, extra safety precautions and a
cutback
in spending on chemical and bacteriological warfare,
for the
multi-billion-dollar cutbacks ordered by the Defense
Department itself, I think we would have seen this military spending hold-down without
any pressure from the Congress.
I think those who would cut our military spending too deeply are making a mistake.
Not only would they place our national security in jeopardy but they re flying in the
face of
the American people's desire to
keep
this Nation militarily strong.
here would the American people cut Federal spending? I
think
they
us hold back our space spending now that we have reached the moon.
Not cut it to levels that would seriously
hurt the space program but hold it to
a pace which would divert more Federal money into water
pollution control,
improvement of local law enforcement, Federal aid to cities, and defense programs
apart from Vietnam
A t lement in Victnam is, however, the key. This is what we desperately need
to rearrange our priorities and to
focus proper attention on the pressing
problems of the Seventies. I believe Mr. Nixon is doing everything humanly possible
to
end the Vietnam War, with honor.
and
Health
Iet me turn now to the Occupational Safety Bill, being considered in the
House by
the Daniels Subcommittee.
Hearings are about to start on this legislation, and the prospects
are for
fattle
a
between supporters of the Administration bill and backers of the old
Democratic bill which was reported out in modified form last year but didn't go
anywhere.
Occupational Safety and Health probably will go over until next session. From
what I have been able to observe, liberal Democrats in the Education and Labor
Commit are determined to clobber any legislation the Administration sends to
that committee. And they do have the votes to do it, so the Administration's
-B-
recourse will have to be on the floor of the House via the amendment route.
On the coal mine sefety bill reported out last Thursday by the House Labor
and Education Committee, the
prospects are for
enactment of the strongest coal
mine health and safety bill ever to clear the
Congress.
Remaining differences center on two main provisions--a Federal "service charge"
of 2 cents a ton on mined coal for a health
r esearch and lung X-ray program, and
Federally-financed workmen's prensation for disable and dead
victims of black lung disease.
Rep. John Erlenborn and other Republicans contend that the 2-cent service charge
is actually a tax, and so the mattor should be considered by the House Ways and Means
Committee. As for
workmen S compensation, that has
always been
handled by the states. If we provide Federally-finance workmen's
compensation
for coal miners, will
other workers not
also demand Federal funding of
such programs?
But all in all the mine safety bill emerged from the committee a better bill:
committee
than the original version. It contains, for instance, rights of review and appeal I
only
with regard to the enforcement of standards but also the writing of them.
In the House Government Operations Committee, hearings are being conducted on
proposals to create a department of consumer affairs
under legislation
sponsored by Rep. Ben Rosenthal an office of consumer affairs under
a bill
introduced by Rep. Florence Dwyer.
Thus
far only private witnesses have testified, and nearly all of them have
endorsed Mrs. Dwyer's approach. In fact, Mrs. Dwyer's bill has been co-sponsored by
Rep. Leonor Sullivan.
Mrs. Dwyer's bill has broad suppor
and may be enacted sometime next year.
The
proposal to establish an office of consumer affairs is an idea whose ti
is about to come. If the time is not next year, it is not much farther off. The
question that remains is the content of the
bill.
There is movement also in th
direction on the Senate side of the Capitol in Sen. Ribicoff's Executive Reorganizat
Subcommittee.
I have touched on subjects in which I felt you had a special interest. Now I
would like to make some
general comment on the direction in which Congress
is tending.
There has been little action to date, but the
work that has been done has been
distinguished by its quality.
-5-
The President is
disappointed by the slowness of the pace, but I am going
to withhold judgment on this first session of the 91st Congress until we adjourn
for the year.
Some pobiticians
on the other side are fond of citing the tremendous avalanche of
legislation passed by the
89th Congress, as though sheer
numbers of
bills are the criterion of a good Congress.
I recell when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield
remarked that the
89th Congress had passed so much legislation so quickly that it was full of loopholes
and rough corners and needed remedial action.
So I will be satisfied if the 91st turns out to be a Quality Congresse but
implicit in that term quality will be the responsiveness of the 91st Congress to
the major reforms proposed by the Nixon Administration.
Ibelieve this Nation and its people will be severely short-changed if the 91st
Congre SS does not enact draft reform, postal reform, welfare reform. the transformati
of welfare into workfare, reform of the food stamp program, narcotics abuse control,
antiocrime logislation,
obscene mail control,
a mass transit program, an air safety program, and
the
revenue sharing which is the hear of
President
Nixon's
"New
Federalism."
President Nixon is moving to meet this Nation's most massive problems- and the
Congress must move with him.
The
basic thrust of the President's domestic
return
program is clear. He is trying to win congressional backing to control, funds
and authority
the states and local units of government so they may move to
solve the problems closest to them.
This is the New Federalism. This is people's government,
guiding
people's programs. This is a government which recognizes the meds of people and
nation 3
seeks to bring them together
to
individuals who a re doing, æring
and sharing.
This is
the challenge of the New Federalism. This is the challenge to us
all-that we abandon the a ttitude that "all is fine
so long as I get mine."
George Bernard
Shaw put it this way: "We are all dependent on one another,
every soul of us on 0 arth."
The responsibility for guiding
the future of America rests not only with
the
Congress,
not only with governmental leaders, not only with the President. In
req onsibility devolves upon all of us. Each of our lives impinges on the lives of
others.
To the extent that we all live the good life, the unselfish life, the lives
all others are enriched.
We all believe in the American Dream. Iet us
live so that all may share in i